Search This Blog

Sunday, October 26, 2014

On 'Gender Inclusive Language'

A little exchange with Matt Flannagan concerning his use of 'gender inclusive language' --

The point is that in many contexts the difference between people’s knowledge, character, abilities, relationship, and authority mean it is perfectly appropriate for one to tell the other to do something that she herself would not do.

Again! with the leftism!

Well, that (the “again”) was real clear, wasn’t it? Here’s my previous comment

A loving parent sets their 9 year old daughter a bedtime of 8:30 pm. This parent’s command reflects their loving character, it does not follow, however, that being loving requires that the parent herself must go to bed at 8:30 pm.

I *do* wish people who are not leftists would check themselves before using leftist-political language. If you’re talking about “a loving parent”, then the correct pronoun to use is neither “their” nor “she/her/her”, it’s “he/his/him” If you’re talking about a her, them you’re not talking about a mere “parent”, you’re talking about a mother.

How often do you use that damnable leftist “gender-inclusive language” to refer to a generic/non-specific murderer … or plumber … as “she”? Never, of course.

Ilion, I was educated in NZ universities, in some subjects its actually required that you use language like that as part of the style guide. I don’t agree with this but I chose to pick my battles. Its become habit

The same is true with my readers, I am aware what I say is going to be controverted by some people so again I pick my battles and try and give people less to complain about.
Every time I have ever chided a non-leftist for employing leftist "gender inclusive language", he has offered *exactly* this excuse. He (by which pronoun I mean both those I have chided in the past and Mr Flannagan presently) is claiming that it's just a stylistic thing, that it's not very important, that it doesn't mean anything.

To which I say, if it doesn't mean anything, then why do it? Do you normally make it a habit when trying to communicate your thought to another to say/write things that don't *mean* anything?

If "gender inclusive language" is just a stylistic thing, then the next time the thought you're trying to get across involves discussing a murderer, or a plumber, why not refer to him as "she"? Ah! But that would be against the rules, wouldn't it? The anti-grammatical "she" is to be employed only in situations or references that one considers to be "positive". Thus, if one is commenting favorably on solders or police officers, then the generic solder or police officer is a “she”; but if one is accusing soldiers (in general) of being “baby killers” or accusing police officers (in general) of “police brutality”, then they are “he”.

If "gender inclusive language" is not very important, then why not stop intentionally employing it? Ah! But then the leftists would turn their sights on you all the sooner, wouldn't they?

You're a Christian -- you don't have to option of surrendering to lies, and using leftist politicized language is exactly that.

Look, I cannot take seriously, in any regard, anyone who uses "gender-inclusive language" (unless he's using it to mock it), for it is an instance of intellectual dishonesty. And I don't want relegate you to the not-to-be-taken-seriously category. Generally, I *immediately* stop reading a person when he uses "gender-inclusive language" non-ironically (*).

If you were speaking/writing in, say, Spanish to a Spanish-speaking audience, would you not carefully use proper Spanish gendered pronouns in the way that the rules of Spanish require? Or if you were merely speaking/writing to fellow English speakers and refering to Spahish persons, would you not carefully distinguish "Latinos" from "Latinas"? Or, given that you are a New Zealander, if you were seeking to speak/write Maori, would you not do you best to learn and observe all the rules of that language?

Yet, when it comes to your own native language, you choose intentionally to use the corrupt, and corrupting, language of leftist anti-masculine politics.

What? Do you really think that the leftists are going to overlook you, when it's your torn to be broken to the briddle, just because you're already using leftist language to signal your coolness? Not in the least. Your choice to use leftist politicized language tells them that you're already half-broken, that the battle for your soul, and your balls, is already half-won.

(*) From my point of view, I'm bending over backwards to give you a chance to stop behaving like an man-hating leftist. So far, what you've done is make excuses: but, if you don't agree with man-hating leftism, then stop speaking/writing -- and thus, thinking -- as though you do.

Please be patient with one more comment from me on the matter --

When you use "gender inclusive language", you are not honoring your wife's femininity; you are denegrating your own masculinity.

"Have you not heard that in the beginning God created them male and female?"

The point of "gender inclusive language" is to deny this fundamental truth, and to make the thinking of it into a thought-crime, and ultimately to make it unthinkable. Using "gender inclusive language" isn't a minor foible, it is active collaboration with the Adversary.

When you use "gender inclusive language", it is not *simply* that you are not honoring your wife's femininity and denegrating your own masculinity, but that you are *also* denegrating her femininity.
"Gender inclusive language", and feminism in general, is rooted in hatred of the feminine. To be sure, feminists hate men and masculinity. But that's more in the nature of sour grapes. What they really hate is womanhood, what they really hate is that "in the beginning God created them male *and* female." What they deny, and want to force *you* to deny, is that it is Good that "in the beginning God created them male *and* female."

edit 2014/10/27:
When one uses "gender inclusive language", one is participating in series of leftist lies, which includes:
* lying about Christianity
* lying about Western civilization
* lying about one's own particular people/culture
* lying about all the non-leftist men of one's civilization and particular people/culture
* (possibly) lying about one's own self, if one is a man and not a leftist (if one *is* a leftist, then one almost always *is* a misogynist)